If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Congress has outlawed certain weapons plenty of times. Like I said, the 2nd amendment has never been interpreted as all or nothing. Semi-automatic is just a line that's been drawn. It can be redrawn.

If you know of a specific Supreme Court case where they outline in detail what counts as "arms" please post it, but as far as I know that's always been a vague term even among textualists (who care what the law meant at the time). Living constitutionalists are not obliged to particularly care what "arms" meant to the founders, but even in a modern context it's kind of vague, no doubt because of that term's relationship to the 2nd amendment.

Ive stated before, and i do believe, the founders were intentionally vague in referring to weapons as arms, because they were certainly intelligent enough to know that new weapons were bound to come along, and the people in their right to freedom from an opressive government (or as in our case a do nothing on crime government) had the right to the weapons of the day.
I certainly believe some arms should be reserved just for the military for the discharge of their duty and their protection. However, i firmly believe that whatever weapon a police officer is considered appropriate to have, a citizen should be able to have as well.
And let's be honest, it's not hard to build a rpg or a flamethrower is you really want one. Or a bomb for that matter. They are illegal, but if someone wanted one bad enough they could make their own.
And i cant wait to read on the ammo supplies being run on if he issues an order restricting it. Because what do we know about government restrictions on anything? It instantly increases demand.

Ive stated before, and i do believe, the founders were intentionally vague in referring to weapons as arms, because they were certainly intelligent enough to know that new weapons were bound to come along, and the people in their right to freedom from an opressive government (or as in our case a do nothing on crime government) had the right to the weapons of the day.

Nobody really knows exactly what they meant. The branch of judicial interpretation known as textualism makes a study of this, but the results vary from scholar to scholar. And then there's another branch of judicial interpretation known as living constitutionalists who don't care so much about the founders' intentions, preferring to focus more on precedent and current social standards.

There's no right way or wrong way (or few of them, anyway). Among other things, the constitution does not include instructions on how it should be interpreted.

I certainly believe some arms should be reserved just for the military for the discharge of their duty and their protection. However, i firmly believe that whatever weapon a police officer is considered appropriate to have, a citizen should be able to have as well.
And let's be honest, it's not hard to build a rpg or a flamethrower is you really want one. Or a bomb for that matter. They are illegal, but if someone wanted one bad enough they could make their own.
And i cant wait to read on the ammo supplies being run on if he issues an order restricting it. Because what do we know about government restrictions on anything? It instantly increases demand.

I don't think that's accurate. Government restrictions would decrease supply, which increases prices. If government restrictions led to an increase in demand that would lead to an increase in supply. You really think that's what would happen? More guns? I don't consider that terribly likely, especially when we have real world examples like Australia to point to where it didn't happen that way.

Getting back to the judicial precedent discussion, I found an interesting blog post (yes, a blog post. Take it for what it's worth), discussing the details of a 2008 Supreme Court decision -- District of Columbia vs. Heller -- that dealt in detail with the 2nd amendment. A quote, then the link:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows.

“…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.

And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.

Despite these critical qualifications, gun rights advocates say they are protected by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, yet selectively ignore the many ways the court allows for some forms of gun control. And despite the way the court enshrines gun ownership as a personal right, gun control advocates criticize the ruling, yet selectively fail to acknowledge or try to take political advantage of the ways it gives them the legal ammunition to accomplish much of what they want.

Just curious, how do you reconcile a test or other qualification for the right to arm yourself, but not to vote? (Not saying you personally, but as a rule of law?) Do rights have levels of importance or inherent danger?

And demand should shoot up....look at how the demand shot up at the mere suggestion of a gun ban. If it ever passes, the run on inventory before it takes place would be epic. The prices would surely spike as well, they already are around here.